Manglona places Swift Air execs’ motion under advisement

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona placed under advisement on Thursday Swift Air executives’ motion to rule in their favor in the claims asserted in Saipan Air Inc.’s racketeering lawsuit against them.

After hearing all arguments from counsel for defendants Boris Van Lier, Donald A. Stukes, and Jeffrey Conry and counsel for Saipan Air Inc., Manglona said a written decision would be forthcoming.

Attorney Michael White appeared on behalf of Van Lier, Stukes, and Conry. Attorney J. Nathan Duggins also appeared via video teleconference on behalf of the three defendants.

Duggins argued the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Saipan Air’s counsel Steven Pixley argued the company’s opposition to the motion.

In defendants’ motion, White asserted that Saipan Air has failed to show that it has suffered any damage in this case and that the company has failed to present sufficient evidence of an actionable pattern of racketeering activity as to any defendant.

White argued that Saipan Air has failed to present evidence that Stukes directed the affairs of the alleged enterprise and that the company cannot establish the necessary elements of a fraud claim.

White added that the unjust enrichment claim fails because it was Swift Air that received the wire transfers from Tan Holdings, and that in any event the security deposits were governed by an express contract between Saipan Air and Swift Air.

In Saipan Air’s opposition, Pixley argued, among other things, that there exists both direct and circumstantial evidence enough for a reasonable trier of facts to conclude that the defendants had no intention to perform their promises.

As for Stuke’s role in the scheme, Pixley pointed out that while the court does not normally weigh the credibility of witnesses at this stage of the proceedings, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from a review of the testimony of Nick Huska, then-chief financial officer of Swift Air, is that one of these witnesses committed perjury.

“This creates a genuine issue of fact as to Stuke’s involvement in this fraudulent scheme,” said Pixley in court documents.

On the unjust enrichment issue, Pixley said Conry and Van Lier were paid $300,000 and $240,000 to $250,000 per annum respectively, which was very high since Swift Air ran only two airplanes at that time. Pixley said Stukes received $295,000 from Swift Air in 2012.

On the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act issue, the lawyer said a review of Saipan Air’s evidence shows that there exists genuine issue of fact regarding the existence of an association-in-fact enterprise.

Pixley said Stukes and Conry have engaged in a pattern of fraudulent activities over the course of the past several years.

Pixley also disclosed that Laurie LeRoux, a former employee of Swift Air, testified in her deposition that Van Lier lied to Saipan Air about the status of two promised aircraft.

The lawyer revealed that Shane Nail, another former employee of Swift Air, described in his deposition that their company’s work on Saipan was a “dog and pony show.”

Saipan Air has filed a $50-million racketeering lawsuit against Van Lier, Stukes, and Conry for fraudulently inducing the company to transfer money and other assets to Swift Air.

The three were employees, officers, or advisers of Swift Air, an Arizona corporation.